Where Did Humans Come From?

[BobRyan]

Yes and the same with Noah and his family. Perhaps the birth defects came as a sort of curse when God gave the commandment not to engage in it anymore on Mt Sinai.

Well actually there is a "mutation rate" that can be measured when it comes to the genetic code. Those mutations occur rather predictably over large spans of generations and cosmic rays, replication error etc are all contributing factors. None of which would have been present in the early generations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is an arbitrary definition on your part - and it does not hold up.

A very wealthy family with a talented child where they have given him everything, still value the child's painting as a masterpiece if in fact that child does have genius quality in his/her painting. They don't "measure out his suffering" to determine if the work has merit. You and I both know this to be true.

When we see a work of art, a genius invention, a garden -- we don't first ask "how much did you personally suffer" before we can determine if the work has merit.

Yeah I’ve been beating that dead horse all weekend. I pointed out that Jesus’ miracles were not laborsome yet they merited praise, hence Jesus’ Triumphant Entry as He entered Jerusalem and all the people were shouting Hosanna because they thought He was a prophet because of all the miracles He performed. Jal replied that they were praising Him because they knew He was God because they possessed the indwelling Holy Spirit. I pointed out that at that the scriptures specifically state that they thought He was a prophet and that no one had received the indwelling Holy Spirit yet because Jesus had not yet been glorified John 7:39. It’s just been one fiasco after another. He refuses to accept that no one received the indwelling Holy Spirit until after Jesus’ resurrection and insists that people receive the Holy Spirit before they believe. I quoted about 5 or 6 examples from scripture specifically stating that certain people believed before receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit and he completely rejects them. I’ve finally come to the conclusion that it’s a lost cause to even try to teach him anything if he can’t accept what the scriptures plainly state.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you do not believe Jesus came literally in the flesh and died for your sins you are lost. Once you decide this bit here can't be literal truth and this bit over here surely can't be, you have stepped on a slippy slope. If a donkey didn't really talk then how can you stand there and say Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified died and buried 3 days then rose again? It is all scripture. If you have cast doubt on one section you cast doubt on all sections. If you want to spiritualize away a section then what is stopping you spiritualizing away the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection?
God is either to be wholly trusted with out mind, heart or soul or not at all.

A professor is simply another human being, as prone to making mistakes as anyone.
The only word to listen and heed is scripture itself.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight

Amen, miracles by definition are not explainable by science so if you can’t believe in miracles because science says otherwise then you can’t believe at least half of the Bible including Christ’s birth and resurrection.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not true.

Jesus started off as a baby - Joseph and Mary were "stronger than Jesus" does that mean they were "stronger than god?"--- obviously not.

As a baby Jesus had to eventually "learn to speak" does that mean that God did not know how to speak - obviously not.

You are employing false syllogisms

Yes if God were capable of learning He couldn’t be omniscient.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well actually there is a "mutation rate" that can be measured when it comes to the genetic code. Those mutations occur rather predictably over large spans of generations and cosmic rays, replication error etc are all contributing factors. None of which would have been present in the early generations.

We really are a mutant race. Our genomes are strewn with millions of rare gene variations, the result of the very fast, very recent population growth of the human species. From an estimated 5 million individuals just 10,000 years ago, we ballooned to more than 7 billion. On average, every duplication of the human genome includes 100 new errors, so all that reproducing gave our DNA many opportunities to accumulate mutations. But evolution hasn’t had enough time to weed out the dangerous ones: gene variants that might make us prone to illness, or simply less likely to survive.
Most Mutations in the Human Genome are Recent and Probably Harmful

Rapid population growth would favor the spread of mutations, and result in a higher number of harmful mutations.

By Noah's time, even given the YE assumptions about time, there would be many millions of mutations in the human genome.

 

[JAL]

You are conflating the work of God on the cross vs the work of God in Creation. They are two different things.

Deflection. You never answered the question as to whether a zero-suffering cross has merit. A virtue such as merit (or love, integrity, etc) is the same principle whether cross, creation, feeding the hungry, evangelism. You're making arbitrary distinctions to dodge questions.

 

[JAL]

Not true.

Jesus started off as a baby - Joseph and Mary were "stronger than Jesus" does that mean they were "stronger than god?"--- obviously not.

As a baby Jesus had to eventually "learn to speak" does that mean that God did not know how to speak - obviously not.

You are employing false syllogisms

It's not a false syllogism. The question it was addressing is whether God is CAPABLE of learning (vs immutable in knowledge). You're right that the conclusion could have been stated more precisely:
...(3) Therefore God is CAPABLE of learning.

OR, to use your two examples.
....(3) God is capable of needing to learn how to speak
....(3) God is capable of being weaker than Joseph and Mary.

So here again, all you've managed to do is nitpick my examples. Is this your big achievement for the month?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Deflection. You never answered the question as to whether a zero-suffering cross has merit. A virtue such as merit (or love, integrity, etc) is the same principle whether cross, creation, feeding the hungry, evangelism. You're making arbitrary distinctions to dodge questions.

Zero suffering on the cross would still merit praise because of the gift of salvation. Do answered prayers merit praise or must God suffer in order to satisfy you enough to give Him praise? Acts of kindness, generosity and mercy merit praise. If you disagree then perhaps your just ungrateful.

 

[JAL]

I can see how such a doctrine might lead one to the "God should not be praised for something if He did not have to suffer to accomplish it" -- but as I have stated repeatedly - that is very very thin logic...


You need some compelling evidence - for such a strong statement about God not deserving of any praise if He is not suffering in some way to accomplish what He does..

Um...er...The definition of a jerk doesn't change.

Your response is known as special pleading. You're trying to make an exception for God. You're saying it's okay for HIM to act like a jerk - and thereby you insult Him by painting Him as a jerk (even if we don't CALL Him that). How sad.

 

[JAL]

Zero suffering on the cross would still merit praise because of the gift of salvation. Do answered prayers merit praise or must God suffer in order to satisfy you enough to give Him praise? Acts of kindness, generosity and mercy merit praise. If you disagree then perhaps your just ungrateful.

That doesn't make sense. If someone slips you a pill for mind-control that changes your nature such that it MAKES you do an act of kindness, and even let's you do it without suffering, do you merit praise?
Follow the merit formula I gave you - it's the only one that makes sense.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That doesn't make sense. If someone slips you a pill for mind-control that changes your nature such that it MAKES you do an act of kindness, and even let's you do it without suffering, do you merit praise?
Follow the merit formula I gave you - it's the only one that makes sense.

What an absolute STUPID comparison. Does anyone control God’s mind when He grants a prayer or bestows grace on someone, or does He do it OF HIS OWN FREE WILL?

 

[JAL]

That is an arbitrary definition on your part - and it does not hold up.

A very wealthy family with a talented child where they have given him everything, still value the child's painting as a masterpiece if in fact that child does have genius quality in his/her painting. They don't "measure out his suffering" to determine if the work has merit. You and I both know this to be true.

When we see a work of art, a genius invention, a garden -- we don't first ask "how much did you personally suffer" before we can determine if the work has merit.

Yes we do this all the time. As an act of KINDNESS, we praise people for things unmerited, I can for example praise my wife's beauty even if she did nothing to earn it/deserve it. That's not the issue I'm dealing with here but with the question:
....(1) Is God is WORTHY of praise (deserving)
....(2) Are His ways higher than our ways? My wife is behaving like a jerk if she DEMANDS praise for beauty that she did not earn/deserve (unless of course she NEEDs that praise, which an infinitely self-sufficient God does NOT need anything).

Picture two sons.
...(1) One is born with a highest IQ in the world. Laziest sloth you ever saw. Never worked a day in his life but, because he's so smart, he seized upon some investments even as a child. Rich.
....(2) The other born with a low IQ but struggles day and night, for decades, to become rich.

All other things being equal, which child has more merit?

 

[BNR32FAN]

@BobRyan

Do you see what I’ve been dealing with?

Zero suffering on the cross would still merit praise because of the gift of salvation. Do answered prayers merit praise or must God suffer in order to satisfy you enough to give Him praise? Acts of kindness, generosity and mercy merit praise. If you disagree then perhaps your just ungrateful.

That doesn't make sense. If someone slips you a pill for mind-control that changes your nature such that it MAKES you do an act of kindness, and even let's you do it without suffering, do you merit praise?
Follow the merit formula I gave you - it's the only one that makes sense.

 

[JAL]

What an absolute STUPID comparison. Does anyone control God’s mind when He grants a prayer or bestows grace on someone, or does He do it OF HIS OWN FREE WILL?

Um...er..an immutably holy God doesn't HAVE free will. He CANNOT behave in a non-holy way. It is MY ontology, not traditional views, that allows for God to have free will.

Now what is free will? If there is no agony of temptation (or at least the agony of indecision) - no suffering - it is not free will.

 

[JAL]

Man is not determined to be saved or lost based on the amount of suffering man endures.

A baby that dies and is saved - will not have consciously endured any suffering or made any choices.

Man is accepted / saved / born again - simply by accepting the Gospel and being born again. If he dies that instant - he is still saved.

Matt 7 does not say "by their suffering you shall know them" but rather "by their fruit you shall know them". The issue is rebellion vs obedience,,, not 'suffering vs no suffering'

More deflection. I wasn't talking about salvation - salvation is by the cross. Nonetheless He WILL evaluate whether you were a good and faithful servant - on what basis, if not the basis of the merit formula?

All I've seen from you are shallow, invalid responses.

 

[JAL]

You need some compelling evidence - for such a strong statement about God not deserving of any praise if He is not suffering in some way to accomplish what He does..

Compelling - like the "compelling evidence" for the Hypostatic Union? Please.
Unbelievably, you go on to supposedly "present the compelling evidence" for the Hypostatic Union:

That phrase is claiming that Christ (Greek term for Messiah) was both God and man in a single person...you are wrong to suppose it does not have the following strong support in scripture

You then cite several verses indicating that Christ was incarnated. Irrelevant. That's not in dispute here. What's in dispute is the "compelling evidence" for the MANNER of incarnation. Via Hypostatic Union?

The Hypostatic Union is beset with the following six pieces of incoherence NOT clearly supported by Scripture.
...(1) An immutable God became man.
...(2) God picked a created human soul -one of us - and placed it in Christ's body. Had YOUR soul been the one selected, we'd now be worshiping it as a member of the Trinity - Quadrinity? Show me the Scripture that proves your created soul is eligible to become a charter member of the uncreated Trinity.
...(3) Any of us selected, in virtue of being human, have a sinful nature. So Jesus, who is God, had a sinful nature? Show me the Scriptures dealing with THAT issue.
...(4) The claim is that He had two natures, human and divine, and thus was both ignorant and omniscient. This results in something like this:
....(A) My friend Mike is a math genius. Ask him any math question, he will tell you the answer.
.....(B) He also has a second nature, an ignorant one. Ask him any math question, he CANNOT tell you the answer.
Pray tell, where is the "compelling evidence" in Scripture for THAT paradox?
...(5) If God ADDED a human soul to the Trinity, then, by parity of reasoning, can He not remove it? Show me the "compelling evidence" in Scripture that a member of the Trinity can be removed.
...(6) Question: Does the additon of a human soul change the immutable Son? Did He become weak, temptible, ignorant, passible? No. Does this mean He drafted a human soul to do all His dirty work on the cross, meanwhile taking all the credit for it? Again, show me the "compelling evidence" in Scripture dealing with THAT paradox.

The Hypostatic Union has NO CLEAR SUPPORT in Scripture. It's just a logical construct. The only difference is that MY logical constructs are comprehensible, they actually MAKE SENSE to the human mind.

Do I really need to ALSO show you that the Trinity, as well, is a logical construct? Don't get me wrong, I'm a Trinitarian, but it's still a construct.

 

[JAL]

Yes if God were capable of learning He couldn’t be omniscient.

By "omniscient" you mean infinite in knowledge, immutably so.
....(1) The Incarnation contradicts the notion of immutable knowledge. Please see my last post on the Hypostatic Union before responding.
....(2). It's an incoherent claim, to begin with, because infinity is not a real/specific number. To assert an incoherent claim is like speaking Chinese to me. Am I supposed to agree with what you say if I can't even understand what is being said?

 

[JAL]

Deleted

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think God is required to make everything comprehensible to us. What seems to be a deep mystery to us may be entirely reasonable for His purposes. I'm not inclined to complain that He didn't explain everything.

 

[BobRyan]

The Hypostatic Union is beset with the following 4 pieces of incoherence NOT clearly supported by Scripture.
...(1) An immutable God became man.
...(2) God picked a created human soul -one of us - and placed it in Christ's body. Had YOUR soul been the one selected, we'd now be worshiping it as a member of the Trinity - Quadrinity? Show me the Scripture that proves your created soul is eligible to become a charter member of the uncreated Trinity.
...(3) Any of us selected, in virtue of being human, have a sinful nature. So Jesus, who is God, had a sinful nature? Show me the Scriptures dealing with THAT issue.

I don't know of anyone who believes what you just said in (2) and (3) and you don't seem to spend any time showing that such a person exists who believes it.

Since you also do not believe it - I join you in not believing (2) and (3) as apparently most other Christians may also join you in not believing them.

In any case I don't nor do many millions of other Christians believe such a thing.

...(4) The claim is that He had two natures, human and divine, and thus was both ignorant and omniscient. This results in something like this:
....(A) My friend Mike is a math genius. Ask him any math question, he will tell you the answer.

1. I assume you are not about to tell us that your friend Mike is God ...
2. The human nature of Christ was created at His birth and the whole point of it - is that His human nature was not just a duplicate of His God nature.

I show the texts pointing out that Christ was both fully God and a real human - your only "proof" to the contrary is that you can't figure out how God can do it. Since you are not a God - that is not proof that God Himself also can't figure it out - just because you as a non-God being can't do it.

That would be like saying that God cannot create all life on planet Earth in 7 literal days --- since you can't do that. So then we must reject scriptures to the contrary.

It is not a logical construct.